 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Watchmaker Argument
|
Hi friends. Now, I know those of you reading this have many difference philosophies, and beliefs and what have you. Now that is all well and good, but regardless of what you believe, for the benefit of everyone, please do not use the following argument.
You may have heard of it before. It is often called the watchmaker argument, or watchmaker analogy. It has been described in many different ways by many people, but the basic idea is thus: Upon finding a watch lying in a forest, you look at its complex features and assume it to be designed (which is correct in this case). Thus, by the same reasoning, we must assume life (which too is complex), must be designed. Perhaps Steve can examine the forest described in the argument himself: |
|
Steve raises a good point. Trees, animals, even rocks all have varying levels of complexity. So why do we single out the watch?
Why not the rock, or a river, or crystal?
Why is the watch seen as such a unique object while the forest itself is just background? Perhaps because life occurs in nature, is self sustaining, and has a mechanism for change and reproduction. While watches do not occur in nature, and do not have a mechanism for change or reproduction. Watches for example, have not roamed the earth for millions of years reproducing and slowly changing over time. |
|
Thank you Steve.
Let’s examine a more common form of this analogy. Someone may point out a complex camera lens and say they know it is designed due to its complexity, and then say the same is true for the human eye, which is also complex. Firstly, one should note that regardless of how true the conclusion may be, the statement itself is a logical fallacy. Let's take a look: 1. A camera is complex, thus it is designed. 2. The human eye is complex, thus it is designed. This is a non sequitur. Steve makes those all the time, let's ask Steve. |
|
1. A cupcake is colorful, thus it is delicious. 2. A bird of paradise is colorful, thus it too is delicious. In both cases we first observe some feature of an object (a camera is designed; a cupcake is delicious). We then try to come up with a reason for this feature (the camera’s complexity; the cupcake’s color). In both cases this reasoning is false, yet we apply it to a different object (the eye, also complex, is designed; a bird of paradise, also colorful, is delicious). Is complexity really what makes an object designed? |
|
Steve's assertion, however crude, is probably correct. That bizarre rock formation is most likely designed. Would you call that rock formation complex? Not especially. Then what is it about this rock formation that makes it appear designed? Very simply, it is because rocks with that shape, and that arrangement do not occur naturally, and we have no natural mechanism for their arrangement other than chance.
Finally, let us for the sake of argument, accept that the premise is true: Anything that is complex, must then require a designer. Wouldn’t we then by our own premise, have to assume that the designer itself, which is complex by definition, must also require a designer? |
|
If we can assert a magic monkey could exist eternally and then one day design something, then we can equally assert that the universe itself existed eternally and then one day began expanding, or been in an endless loop of expansion and contraction, or thousands of other examples.
Keep in mind, this doesn't mean the magic monkey can't be real. It just means the argument is unsound. Cuz, I mean, honestly, how awesome would a magic monkey be? |
| Oh of course, the perfect circle. Thank you Steve for that clarification. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|  |
| First | | Previous | | Archive | | Next | | Latest |
|
Contact Me |
© 2008-2009 by Arad Kedar.